Incorrect Generation of Closures with Multiple Optional Parameters Using any Keyword in Automockable.stencil Template

[lucaArchidiacono]

What version of Swift are you using (swift --version)?

swift-driver version: 1.113 Apple Swift version 6.0 (swiftlang-6.0.0.7.6 clang-1600.0.24.1)
Target: arm64-apple-macosx14.0

What did you do?

I'm using Sourcery 2.2.5 and the default Automockable.stencil template. The default template for Automockable, parses and generates not compiler safe code.
Given the following code:

// sourcery: AutoMockable
protocol AnyClosureProtocol {
    func evaluateJavaScript(_ javaScriptString: String, completionHandler: (@MainActor @Sendable (Any?, (any Error)?) -> Void)?)
}

What did you expect to see?

I expect the default Automockable.stencil to generate compiler safe code. I expected that it generates the following code:

    //MARK: - evaluateJavaScript

    var evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCallsCount = 0
    var evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCalled: Bool {
        return evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCallsCount > 0
    }
    var evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidClosure: ((String, (@MainActor @Sendable (Any?, (any Error)?) -> Void)?) -> Void)?

    func evaluateJavaScript(_ javaScriptString: String, completionHandler: (@MainActor @Sendable (Any?, (any Error)?) -> Void)?) {
        evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCallsCount += 1
        evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidClosure?(javaScriptString, completionHandler)
    }

What did you see instead?

When building and trying to generate mocked code, the compiler will fail and tell that the newly generated code has wrong syntax.
This is the generated code it came up with:

    //MARK: - evaluateJavaScript

    var evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCallsCount = 0
    var evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCalled: Bool {
        return evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCallsCount > 0
    }
    var evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidClosure: ((String, ((@MainActor @Sendable (Any)?, (any Error)?) -> Void))?) -> Void)?

    func evaluateJavaScript(_ javaScriptString: String, completionHandler: (((@MainActor @Sendable (Any)?, (any Error)?) -> Void))?) {
        evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidCallsCount += 1
        evaluateJavaScriptJavaScriptStringStringCompletionHandlerMainActorSendableAnyAnyErrorVoidVoidClosure?(javaScriptString, completionHandler)
    }

This does not work because of the followintg compiler errors:

What is the actual problem?

The problem is, that it replaces every ? with )? which should not be the case for the Any? parameter.
This happens only, and only if:

1. The parameter is a closure
2. Is optional
3. contains:"any "

The replace function is too naive and adds too many parentheses.
Here are the lines, which are in my opinion, the places where the replace is to generous:

• Sourcery/Templates/Templates/AutoMockable.stencil

  Line 254 in 3da93a7

  ({{ typeName.unwrappedTypeName| replace:"inout ","" | replace:"any","(any" | replace:"?",")?" }})?

• Sourcery/Templates/Templates/AutoMockable.stencil

  Line 310 in 3da93a7

  ({{ typeName.unwrappedTypeName | replace:"any","(any" | replace:"?",")?" }})?

[lucaArchidiacono]

Here is a naive solution I have in mind. Please check it out and let me know if thats the correct way to go forward or not.
I'd also like to contribute and help solving this issue if possible.

[iDevid]

I had several problems with closures and I fixed them all with the snippet from @lucaArchidiacono , thanks!

[krzysztofzablocki]

@lucaArchidiacono if you submit PR will be able to see if there are any tests failing with that approach, we can deal with that and get it merged into upstream then, would appreciate it!